web2mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-dependency profile is covered. The word "latest" adds a hint about data freshness, but the description says nothing about upstream source, update cadence, rate limits, or error behavior on an invalid currency code. Some added value, but thin for an open-world call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence, front-loaded and waste-free. The bracketed "[currency]" prefix is stray formatting noise that adds nothing, which keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and the schema fully self-documents its two optional params, so little is required. However, with no output schema, the description does not indicate the shape of the response (a base/symbols/rates object), leaving an agent to guess at the return structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both base (default USD) and symbols (comma-separated) documented inline, so the schema carries the burden. The description only echoes "from a base currency" and adds no format detail or interaction semantics (e.g. that symbols filters the returned set). Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (latest exchange rates) and a scoping input (base currency), which is enough to tell what the tool returns. It is not confusable with any sibling, all of which are search/geocode/weather tools. It stops short of a 5 only because it says nothing about scope limits (which currencies, how many) or the Frankfurter source behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus anything else, no notes on defaults, and no statement of what happens when symbols is omitted. The sibling list contains no other currency tool, so ambiguity is low, but the description still offers no usage direction at all.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world behavior are covered structurally; the description usefully adds what the response contains (coordinates, country, timezone), which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about ambiguity handling — e.g., that a common name can match multiple places and the limit parameter controls how many come back.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource first and the payoff second, with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the usage and parameter detail scored elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential what-and-what-you-get. It falls short on multi-match behavior (why there is a limit with default 3), language localization, and how it composes with the weather tools, all of which an agent needs to call it well.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning for 'limit' (how many matches, default 3) or 'language' (result localization), and does not warn that partial/fuzzy names are accepted. It only reinforces the required 'name' parameter, which the schema already documents with an example.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('a city or place') plus the concrete outputs returned: coordinates, country, timezone. That is far beyond restating the name. It does not differentiate from siblings, but the siblings (currency, github, weather, wikipedia) are unrelated services, so no routing statement is needed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. The most valuable missing hint is chaining: this tool produces the coordinates that weather_forecast would need, and wikipedia_summary is the alternative for descriptive place facts. Nothing in the description tells the agent that.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing: it doesn't say what 'details' include, whether private repos need auth, or what happens when the repo doesn't exist. For an open-world remote fetch this is thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted or buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should define what 'details' are returned (metadata fields, defaults) and how errors surface; instead it leaves the return payload entirely undefined for a two-parameter required-identifier call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining owner and repo, yet it says nothing about them — not even that owner may be a user or an organization, or that repo is the repository name rather than a full path.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('one repository'), and the singular scope implicitly separates it from github_search_repos. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so the differentiation is left partly to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus github_search_repos (e.g., 'use when you already know owner/repo; use search to find them'). The only hint is the required owner/repo pair in the schema, which the description never states.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that GitHub's search qualifier syntax is passed through, but says nothing about rate limits, sort defaults, or the 30-result cap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the single most useful usage detail. Nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and zero parameter descriptions in the schema, the definition should explain sort and limit behavior. Those are entirely absent, so an agent cannot tell what sort defaults to or why results might be truncated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the query parameter well with a concrete example, but leaves sort and limit completely undocumented in both schema and description — including the limit's 1–30 range.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search repositories") plus an example query, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling github_repo (single-repo lookup), leaving that differentiation to naming alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The example query implies when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it instead of the sibling github_repo, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already declare this as a safe, live-web read. The description adds only the freshness signal ('currently'), and says nothing about return shape, story count limits, or pagination behavior beyond what annotations cover.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero wasted prose. The '[hackernews]' namespace prefix is mild noise but harmless.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a trivial one-optional-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema, an agent gets no hint of what a 'story' contains, so the description is slightly thin for invocation confidence.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single 'limit' parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Max stories (1-30)'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the limit, but the baseline of 3 applies when coverage is complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific resource ('Stories currently on the Hacker News front page') with a clear scope qualifier ('currently'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling hackernews_search. It lacks an explicit verb (list/fetch), but the resource is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'currently on the front page' suggests this is the tool for browsing the live front page rather than searching, and hackernews_search is the obvious alternative. No explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-network behavior are covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing — no indication of result ordering, whether comments or only stories are indexed, or how results are shaped.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a search tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A simple two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, so the description is adequate to invoke it. It still leaves open what a result contains and how matches are ranked, which matters for a search endpoint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (query, limit) are already documented with bounds and defaults. The phrase 'by keyword' reinforces the query parameter but adds no syntax or matching semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb+resource: 'Search Hacker News stories by keyword.' It distinguishes itself from hackernews_front_page by implying keyword-driven search rather than a fixed listing, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this over hackernews_front_page, nor on what kinds of queries work (author, domain, date, full text). The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile and external-call nature. The description adds the returned field set, which is useful, but omits the forecast horizon cap (max 16 days) and units, which matter for a forecast tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field list is efficient. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain the `days` range and coordinate requirements. It covers the return shape adequately but leaves input behavior gaps an agent would need to infer from the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions the `days` parameter (default 3, max 16) or what latitude/longitude require. It adds only the return-field semantics, leaving all three input parameters undocumented in prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and output: current conditions plus a daily forecast with named fields (max/min temperature, precipitation, weather code). An agent instantly knows what it returns, though it doesn't explicitly name the data source behavior (Open-Meteo) beyond the title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the weather domain, and no sibling tool covers weather so there is no real alternative to route to. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over geocode_search for resolving coordinates, nor any prerequisite about needing lat/lon first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by stating the return shape ('titles, short descriptions and excerpts'), which matters because no output schema exists; it omits any note on rate limiting or result ordering.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: the operation first, the return value second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields, and the limit parameter's bounds are in the schema. The remaining gap is the lack of routing guidance relative to wikipedia_summary, which is the sibling an agent is most likely to confuse this with.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no query syntax, matching behavior, or ranking detail beyond what the schema already says, matching the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search of Wikipedia'), which is unambiguous and distinct from the other sibling tools. It stops short of explicitly naming wikipedia_summary as the alternative for a single-article lookup, so the sibling distinction is only implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the word 'search' – there is no statement of when to prefer this over wikipedia_summary, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. An agent can infer the split (query broadly vs. fetch a known article) but must do the inference itself.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — it returns the lead section only, not the full article — but says nothing about behavior on near-miss titles, redirects, or disambiguation pages, which matters for an exact-title lookup.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and the key constraint both land immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read with no output schema and annotations covering safety, this is nearly sufficient — it tells you the input shape and that output is the lead summary. Only the failure mode for inexact titles is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage and an inline example ('Cloudflare'), so the schema carries the load. The description reinforces the exact-match requirement, which is the one semantic that could trip an agent up, but adds no formatting or case-sensitivity detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb + resource ("Get the lead summary of a Wikipedia article") with the constraining qualifier "by exact title". This implicitly separates it from the sibling wikipedia_search, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"by exact title" implies the precondition that you already know the title and that this is a lookup, not a discovery tool. However, no explicit when-to-use statement and no reference to wikipedia_search for the find-the-title-first case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.